Singer Kumar Sanu ‘s ex-wife Rita Bhattacharya has responded to the defamation suit filed against her in the Bombay High Court, alleging that her recent interviews and social media statements have caused significant damage to his reputation. The suit seeks Rs 50 crore in damages, substantially more than the Rs 30 lakh reported in some media outlets. Sanu’s legal team has denied these accusations, describing them as false and malicious.
Rita, in response to the legal notice, expressed her surprise and disappointment at the scale of the damages sought by Sanu. “I’m shocked. He is filing a case against the mother of his three grown-up sons. The paper he has sent me, he is asking for 50 crores. I don’t know how Sanu is dreaming that I have so much money. It is really sad,” Rita told Bombay Times.
The suit also refers to an agreement reached during their divorce in 2001, which stipulated that neither party would make allegations against the other. Kumar Sanu’s legal representatives claim that Rita has breached this contract through her recent public remarks.
Rita and Sanu were married in 1986 and separated seven years later. Their divorce was finalised in 2001. The couple has three sons, the youngest of whom is now 31 years old. Rita has said that the ongoing legal dispute is affecting their family life.
In her comments, Rita appealed to Kumar Sanu, asking him to reconsider his actions for the sake of their children. She said, “I will see him in the court. And I will request Sanu with folded hands — just try to be a good human being and be the father of my three children. If you can’t love us, at least don’t disturb us and don’t harass us anymore.”
Legal observers note that the case hinges on the provisions of the divorce settlement and whether Rita’s remarks amount to a contractual violation. The Bombay High Court will determine whether her public statements justify the substantial damages sought by Sanu.
Both parties await the court’s decision, with Rita indicating her intention to defend herself against the allegations. The case has drawn attention because of the personal nature of the dispute and the high-profile individuals involved.
